According to Harry Reid’s own standards, he should lose his entire Hispanic vote over this, right? While Democrats paint Republicans who challenge birthright citizenship as extremists, it turns out that Reid was seventeen years ahead of the curve.In 1993, just after Democrats won the White House, Reid filed a bill that would have done exactly what some Republicans now demand — end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. Kerry Picket digs up the record for theWashington Times:

Title X of the Reid introduced bill shows the Nevada Democrat took Senator Lindsey Graham’s, South Carolina Republican, idea on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and documented it into legislation:

“TITLE X—CITIZENSHIP 4 SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED. In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”

Even the summary of the bill contains language that would offend many of Mr. Reid’s supporters who are pushing amnesty for illegal immigrants in the United States:

“A bill to curb criminal activity by aliens, to defend against acts of international terrorism, to protect American workers from unfair labor competition, and to relieve pressure on public services by strengthening border security and stabilizing immigration into the United States.”

The bill appears to have gone nowhere, and it’s not clear whether it would have been effective or not. If the 14th Amendment grants birthright citizenship no matter whether the parents are in the US legally, legislation won’t undo that. It would take a constitutional amendment — which may be why S1351 never went anywhere in 1993 or 1994 in the 103rd Session of Congress.

On the other hand, the proviso of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the language of the 14th Amendment leaves a good basis for courts to determine a meaning that requires one parent to either be a citizen or to have entered the country legally. As far as I’ve seen, that argument hasn’t been tested in court to see whether a constitutional amendment is even required. In that case, a bill passed by Congress like S1351 would at least give the courts a sense of Congress on the meaning of the 14th amendment, although a court wouldn’t be required to make that an overriding consideration.

In any case, this shows the utter hypocrisy of Harry Reid and Democrats in general in their effort to paint questions over birthright citizenship as somehow extreme. Reid himself thought it important enough to draft and submit legislation to limit it to its common-sense application to those legally in the US.

The main argument against building the Park51 mosque adjacent to Ground Zero has been that its placement would be a lasting affront to the memory of the Americans who died at the hands of Muslim terrorists. And that argument is certainly sufficient by itself. But it is not the most important argument against a mosque in that location. To understand what is, we must remember what happened the last time we fought against suicide bombers, who, like their contemporary Muslim counterparts, were inspired by what they felt to be a divine mission.

In the Second World War, Japanese suicide bombers posed a huge threat to allied ships. One pilot could take out a heavily fortified ship by crashing a plane stuffed with explosives into its deck, a result that would have taken a huge investment of lives and material to achieve by conventional means.

The individual pilot faced certain death, but he accepted that fate because he believed that the Gods were with him and with Japan. The word used to describe this tactic (“kamikaze”) refers to an event in Japanese history where the country was saved from invasion and conquest by Kubla Khan. A sudden typhoon scattered the Khan’s fleet. The Japanese saw the wind as an intervention by their Gods, and so in WWII they called their suicide pilots another divine wind, that is, the kamikaze.

The sense that the Gods are with you must be kept strong enough in the minds of suicide pilots to override the normal instinct for self-preservation, but that means that defeats and victories alike are leveraged. A great victory is not just something that advances your cause—equally important to the suicide bomber is that it strongly reinforces his sense that the Gods are with him; for did not the victory show that the Gods were smiling on Japan? This was also the basis of the Japanese soldier’s fanatical zeal toward fighting to the death, with surrender not being an honorable option.

The enormously destructive bombing of Britain and Germany only brought out the stubbornness of the population, yet the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagakasi quickly broke the Japanese will to fight, even though their fighting spirit had been unmatched throughout the war. Why? Something is certainly due to the scope of the weapon used, but more important was the leveraging effect that defeats and victories have on people with a sense of divine mission. Catastrophes on the scale of Hiroshima could not be reconciled with the notion that the Gods were with Japan. The sense of a divine mission simply vanished. Japan not only surrendered (hitherto unthinkable for any Japanese soldier), but actually changed direction so completely that it soon became a peaceful democratic nation. By contrast, Germany only surrendered when virtually the entire nation had been destroyed.

The case of Japan in WWII tells us why building the mosque at Ground Zero will not just offend American sensibilities—more important is that it will cost many additional American lives. Islamist suicide bombers too need to have the idea firmly in their minds that Allah is with them and their cause.

That means that the same leveraging effect is in play. Great victories enhance the conviction that Allah is with them, and that will produce even more suicide bombers. Great defeats (for example, the destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan) will begin to undermine that conviction; for how could Allah desert his warriors so?

Who can doubt that potential and actual Islamic terrorists will take it as a sign from Allah when a huge mosque is built in the shadow of their greatest victory? Surely they will see it as Allah crowning their victory of 9/11 and making it even greater. And just as surely, they will see it as an invitation to even greater things than 9/11, because Allah has shown them again that he is with them.

That is the psychology of terrorists with a sense of divine mission. And so we need to avoid at all costs anything that will be seen as a divine blessing for their efforts, and we should instead be looking for ways to hand them demoralizing defeats. If the divine wind blows in the other direction often enough, sooner or later believers will start to wonder whether it is in fact divine.

What this means is that Imam Rauf has things exactly backwards. He tells us that a defeat for his project at Ground Zero will encourage the terrorists to more violence. To the contrary, it is the success of his project that will encourage the terrorists to more violence. A man as well versed in Islamic matters as Rauf must know this perfectly well—which makes his specious, devious argument to the contrary just one more reason to question his good-will and sincerity.

John Ellis is Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Santa Cruz

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 and moved to Saudi Arabia were it continues to operate and receive funding to continue an International Revolutionary Organizational conquest of societies to submit them into Islam. (see Govt Exhibit: http://babylonscovertwar.com/page2.html Under General PDF)

To Destroy the US from within - and to achieve this, the MB will get the “hands” of the non-believers to accomplish this ultimate goal through long-term jihad and subversive means

By controlling or influencing our; Senior Government Leadership Religious Organizations US Media US Educational System US Law Enforcement US Intelligence US Military Leadership

The MB uses informational warfare and violent (covert) actions

Every major Muslim Organization in North America is controlled by the MB - even CAIR. They use front groups to spread the ideology and goals of conquering the US. They have infiltrated the political and educational systems with these groups. Muslim Student Association has at least 600 chapters in the US alone. The Muslim American Society is a MB front group founded by MB senior leaders. The Islamic Society of North America was founded in 1982 in Plainsfield, IN (just west of Indianapolis and where the Indiana State Police Academy is located) It serves as the nucleus of all Islamic organizations founded in North America. The members are trained foreign service intelligence officers that know how to use subversive means to destroy opposition from within.

Paul Kengor is the author of the new book, “DUPES: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.” The political science professor and executive director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College has previously authored such books as “God and Ronald Reagan” and “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”

Kengor recently answered 10 questions about his new book for The Daily Caller:

1. Why did you write the book?

I know people will think I wrote it to be polemical or sensational, but the fact is that I would have never had this idea if I hadn’t been regularly reading Soviet archives for previous projects, and especially the Soviet Comintern Archives on CPUSA— that is, Communist Party USA. There are hundreds of reels of microfiche from this archive just sitting on shelves at the Library of Congress. Our esteemed “scholars” in the academic left are ignoring them.

Once I took a close look, I quickly understood why: This material is shocking, fully vindicating the worst fears and claims of anti-communists throughout the 20th century. It shows not only that American communists were secretly serving the Soviet Union, but that they considered themselves loyal Soviet patriots. They were absolutely, unequivocally dedicated to the goal of worldwide communism, headquartered in Moscow, with the United States itself becoming a communist state. I’m not exaggerating at all.

2. What is the biggest revelation you make in your book?

This sounds like shameless self-promotion, but there really are dozens of them. Think about this: the book is 600 pages long, small print, with over 1,500 endnotes. It has three appendices, numerous photo exhibits. And with all that, believe me when I tell you that I held back. This could be volume one in a multi-volume set. And given that the book is based on newly declassified archives, naturally it has lots of revelations.

What’s the biggest revelation? I don’t know, but here are four that will interest modern audiences:

I have all of the weekly columns written by Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, for the 1949-50 Honolulu Record, which was the CPUSA organ in Hawaii. These columns are unbelievably outrageous. Davis toed the Stalinist line unerringly, perfectly parroting every talking point of the Communist Party.

This means that Davis demonized the Democratic Party leadership opposing Stalin at the time. Davis turned Harry Truman into a monster, not to mention George Marshall and wonderfully generous programs like the Marshall Plan.

Why did Davis do this? Because Frank Marshall Davis was a communist — which itself is one of my revelations. It took me four years to determine whether Davis was a duped liberal or a duping communist; I found, definitively, that he was the latter. See pages 507 to 515 of the book, where we reprint documents from Davis’s recently declassified FBI file, including the document that lists his actual Communist Party membership number.

This is not an exaggeration: Our current president’s mentor in Hawaii in the 1970s was a pro-Soviet communist. I promise you that I’m not misrepresenting that one bit. I know it’s incendiary to say that, but it’s absolutely accurate. Americans, voting for “change,” voted Davis’s pupil president in November 2008.

NEXT: Kengor’s shocking revelations on Ted Kennedy and Humphrey BogartBeyond Davis, the material on Ted Kennedy is likewise shocking. I include the entire May 1983 KGB document on Kennedy’s private offer to Yuri Andropov — an offer to work against Ronald Reagan. The letter has since been resealed in Russian archives. We publish it in its entirety in both Russian and English.

Speaking of Russian and English, another revelation is the scandalous neglect by historians of John Dewey’s deep admiration for the Soviet Union in the late 1920s, and the fact that the Bolsheviks were busy translating Dewey’s education works into Russian even before they swept American public schools and trained a century of American public-school teachers. Dewey is the father of modern American public education. The Soviets adored his work, believing it was perfect for a communist state.

One more major item: I found a January 1934 document from the CPUSA Workers School in New York City, which lists a “Bogart” among its students. At great length and with great care — and, hopefully, sensitivity and fairness — I consider whether that Bogart might have been Humphrey Bogart. I cannot prove that it was, and I don’t say that it was. But the document is obviously intriguing, and, at some point, someone else would have stumbled upon it. I deal with it, and I hope I treated Bogart with fairness.

3. The book discusses Jimmy Carter’s record of dealing with Communism and Islamism. Impressive record, right?

Horrible. Jimmy Carter is the bridge between those two threats, making a seamless transition from being duped during the Cold War to being duped into the War on Terror. Carter’s actions and comments regarding Leonid Brezhnev (USSR) and the Ayatollah (Iran) in 1979 — the latter’s Islamic revolution basically birthing modern Islamic terrorism — were repeated again and again by Carter well after his presidency.

For instance, see his post-Cold War comments on the likes of Kim in North Korea, Hamas, Iraq, the Palestinians. It’s no coincidence that the cover of this book features Carter kissing Leonid Brezhnev in June 1979 — just a few months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, incidentally.

I should add that I always knew that Carter was a bad president, and was duped. But even I had no idea of just how terribly naïve he was until I dug deep into the Presidential Papers.

What Carter said, again and again, was nothing short of jaw-dropping. I’d sit there and stare at his statements, reading them over and over, saying to myself, “I can’t believe this. I simply can’t believe this.”

NEXT: Kengor on how his political mentor, Ronald Reagan, was duped 4. You write that even the great Ronald Reagan was duped – at least when he was a young actor in Hollywood. How so?

That’s right. And Reagan is basically my political mentor. Those who recognize my name usually recognize me because of my previous books on Reagan, like “God and Ronald Reagan” and “The Crusader.” I hope my inclusion of Reagan shows that I’m not being partisan. Reagan, as a young actor in Hollywood in the 1940s, was duped, and admitted to being duped, only to emerge as arguably the greatest anti-communist.

By the way, this hits on a major theme in this book: the redemption found by onetime dupes who learned, switched, and weren’t duped again, instead reemerging as stalwart anti-communists. Really, my heroes in this book are almost all liberals and Democrats: those who were duped but then changed, or those who were never duped to begin with. If I had to count them, there are probably a hundred such liberals and Democrats in this book.

5. Who are the biggest dupes in government today?

Those would be politicians like ******* Durbin, John Kerry, Pete Stark, Barbara Lee, and Maxine Waters. The duping in the War on Terror, however, is quite different. Today, it has been more a matter of these liberals excoriating the likes of George W. Bush with absurd allegations that please the Islamist enemy, but allegations that were not prompted by Islamists nor even intended to help Islamists. It’s an unwitting form of assistance. That’s what a dupe does: unwittingly, unknowingly helps the adversary.

That said, there has been some deliberate manipulation by the enemy in the War on Terror. For instance, the way that Congressman Jim McDermott was rolled by Saddam Hussein’s crew in Baghdad in late 2002 is disturbing. I detail that at length in the book.

6. Your research uncovers Soviet records that show that it was a specific policy of the Soviet Union to target liberals, especially academics and the leftwing religious figures. Can you explain this further?

Those were the two groups most successfully targeted by communists. On page 65, I include a 1920 letter from the Comintern listing four pages of “liberal” college professors to be targeted with communist materials. Among them, by the way, is Dr. Harry F. Ward, the liberal Methodist who was one of the founding members of the ACLU. Ward was one of the biggest dupes I encountered in all of my research.

Generally, the Religious Left is a tragic case. Herb Romerstein, the veteran investigator of the communist movement and authority on the Venona papers, calls the Religious Left “the biggest suckers of them all.” I think that’s right. Picture this scenario: here was the Religious Left, invoking Jesus — “blessed are the peacemakers,” “turn the other cheek” — being exploited by clandestine communists, who they trusted to a fault.

Bear in mind that these were militantly atheistic communists, whose leader, Stalin, was blowing up churches and locking up and executing priests, and yet the Religious Left, again and again, joined the communists at their rallies, in their petitions, and on and on — sometimes literally locked arm in arm.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. These liberal Christians were sheep led to the slaughter. The brooding communists privately held them in contempt for their breathtaking gullibility.

NEXT: The parallels Kengor sees between the fight against Soviet Communism and Islamism7. What parallels, if any, do you see between America’s fight against Soviet Communism and America’s battle against Islamist terrorist movements today?

Once again, you have people on the left making some really ill-advised and even irresponsible statements — especially aimed at the likes of a George W. Bush — which inadvertently serve our adversaries.

At the same time, there are crucial differences. In the Islamic world, for instance, there’s no centrally coordinated organization akin to a Soviet Comintern, which is cooking up propaganda to send to the field workers at CPUSA offices in New York and Chicago. The communists excelled at the crass art of propaganda. They worked at it full-time. They were outstanding liars.

Also, very interesting, people on the liberal/progressive left during the Cold War shared some common sympathies with the communists, making them vulnerable to duping. Today’s liberal, however, shares nothing in common with the Islamist. And yet, isn’t it fascinating to see liberals — under the guise of religious “tolerance,” which they rarely extend to fundamentalist Christians — rallying to defend the construction of a mosque near ground zero, or denouncing the pastor in Florida threatening to burn the Koran?

Do these liberals think that Muslim fundamentalists would join them in support of, say, gay marriage, or would extend similar levels of tolerance toward non-Muslims living in the Middle East under Sharia law?

8. Can we use “dupe” and “useful idi...ot” interchangeably?

I suppose we could, but, if I wanted to be strict about it, I’d use them interchangeably only for a limited period, namely, the Cold War. The phrase “use...ful idiot” is attributed to Lenin. So, that term caught on early in the 20th century.

The term “dupe” is broader and deeper, with roots in the founding of the American republic. George Washington actually warned of “dupes” in his “Farewell Address.” Also, I would add that the term “dupe” was more common than “useful idi...ot” throughout even the Cold War period. In Hollywood in the 1940s and 1950s, for example, it was very common to hear some celebrity like Humphrey Bogart, or Ronald Reagan, or Edward G. Robinson, or John Garfield, exclaim, “Boy, was I duped.” They rarely said, “Boy, was I a useful idiot.” “Duped” has been the more common word.

9. Explain the harm that these progressive dupes have caused? And when you say they have aided America’s enemies, do you believe this was their intention?

It wasn’t their intention. That’s the very essence of being duped: you’re unwittingly misled. A dupe has been deliberately manipulated — preyed by those with concealed purposes not disclosed to the dupe. This can have the ultimate effect of helping the enemy, but the willful intent is on the side of the duper, not the duped.

The dupes are culpable, to some degree, but they are really innocent. They’re oblivious.

10. Any plans to write another book? If so, about what?

Right now, I have a few ideas, but I’m not sure what I’ll do next. These things aren’t always planned. Ten years ago, I could not have imagined writing this book. I set aside three or four other book ideas once I started looking through the archives and got the motivation. So, I’m not sure.

A group of concerned Texas citizens unwittingly discovered rampant vote fraud during the 2008 election, apparently orchestrated by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

“The first thing we started to do was look at houses with more than six voters in them” Engelbrecht said, because those houses were the most likely to have fraudulent registrations attached to them. “Most voting districts had 1,800 if they were Republican and 2,400 of these houses if they were Democratic… But we came across one with 24,000, and that was where we started looking.”

It was Houston’s poorest and predominantly black district, which has led some to accuse the group of targeting poor black areas. But Engelbrecht rejects that, saying, “It had nothing to do with politics. It was just the numbers.”

…“Vacant lots had several voters registered on them. An eight-bed halfway house had more than 40 voters registered at its address,” Engelbrecht said. “We then decided to look at who was registering the voters.” Their work paid off. Two weeks ago the Harris County voter registrar took their work and the findings of his own investigation and handed them over to both the Texas secretary of state’s office and the Harris County district attorney.

Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Steve Caddle, who also works for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid.

The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures…

I find it almost stupefying to have discovered that some of my neighbors support the modern Democrat Party, seeing as how it’s mostly funded by public sector union bosses, illegal immigration front groups, trial lawyers, and George Soros-sty...le America-haters.

Doug Ross reminds us that Mark Levin observed that we are as close to a dictatorship as we have ever been.

Last May, Mark Levin — the President of Landmark Legal Foundation — stated that President Barack Obama was the “closest thing to a dictator” this country had ever seen.

The list of horribles included his naked attempts to silence critics, his encouragement of voter intimidation, his support of rampant vote fraud, the implicit campaign to encourage illegal immigration, and his blatant abrogation of contract law (e.g., the GM and Chrysler bailouts).

Now, in a bold attempt to shut down the opposition media, Obama has declared Fox News the enemy of the state.

Now Obama is at it again, demonizing the most popular and trusted cable news outlet in the United States. In an exclusive interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, Obama made the extraordinarily un-presidential claim that Fox is “destructive to [America's] long-term growth.”

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“Industries, companies or portions of companies could be temporarily shut down, or be required to take other steps to address threats,” states the report, citing concerns about an “imminent threat to the U.S. electrical grid or other critical infrastructure such as the water supply or financial network.”

Or support Republicans.

Obama has installed a shadow government of 35 czars who are unaccountable to Congress or to the American people. They include several Marxists.

The timing of the EPA’s moves also hint at political motives. Congressman Welch believes the new policies are intended to tell Congress, “that if we don’t pass legislation, the President will not wait and will just go ahead and regulate.”

Columbia’s Heal agrees: “The EPA announcements are designed to put pressure on the Senate and on industry representatives who are pushing senators, that if they don’t act, [the EPA] will, in ways industry won’t like.”

(By the way, if you’d like to se what increasing CO2 levels do for green plants, go here)

When the Journolist scandal broke, the leftist media’s behind-the-scenes communications about Sarah Palin revealed an anti-Christian sentiment. Now, as two stories about faith, one from President Obama and one from Christine O’Donnell, hit the headlines at roughly the same time but with very different perspectives, we take note of a clear example of anti-Christian attitudes being directed against only one side — the Right. The disparity in reporting involved in these two similar stories gives us a rare glimpse into media facilitation of the agenda of the Religious Left, to educate America that God is good and relevant when referenced by the Left, but scary or irrelevant when referenced by the Right.

At Politico, O’Donnell’s profession of faith was portrayed as yet another stumble in a series of mistakes while Obama’s belief in the grace of the Cross was reported quite differently. Politico’s Andy Barr not only shared Obama’s quotes but offered an added bonus in assuring us that the president is quite saturated with Christianity in the Oval Office. He reminds readers that any doubts whatsoever about Obama‘s Christianity are based on “misinformation” that is rightly “quashed”.

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.

This is a coordinated National Tea Party, calling for the Impeachment, conviction and removal from office of Barack Obama. The suggested day of the protest is November 13th, 2010. It will be simple street protest, not a rally with speakers. This is the current list of participants, times and places. Check the list for frequent updates as the date of the protest approaches.

Anyone can organize an Impeach Obama protest in their own town or region. Leave the information here in the comments section and we will help publicize your event. If you would like to organize a local tea party, see the suggestions at this link:

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.

U.S. apologizes for Guatemala STD experimentsGovernment researchers infected patients with syphilis, gonorrhea without their consent in the 1940s under the administration of democratic president Harry Truman

U.S. government medical researchers intentionally infected hundreds of people in Guatemala, including institutionalized mental patients, with gonorrhea and syphilis without their knowledge or permission more than 60 years ago.

Many of those infected were encouraged to pass the infection onto others as part of the study.

About one third of those who were infected never got adequate treatment.

On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius offered extensive apologies for actions taken by the U.S. Public Health Service.

"The sexually transmitted disease inoculation study conducted from 1946-1948 in Guatemala was clearly unethical," according to the joint statement from Clinton and Sebelius. "Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health. We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices."

Secretary Clinton called Guatemalan president Alvara Cabellaros Thursday night to reaffirm the importance of the U.S. relationship with the Latin American country. President Barack Obama called Cabellaros Friday afternoon, according to a statement from White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

"The people of Guatemala are our close friends and neighbors in the Americas," the government statement says. "As we move forward to better understand this appalling event, we reaffirm the importance of our relationship with Guatemala, and our respect for the Guatemalan people, as well as our commitment to the highest standards of ethics in medical research." (Con amigos respetuosos como los demócratas, los hispanos no necesitan enemigos).

During a conference call Friday with National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins and Assistant Secretary of State Arturo Valenzuela, officials noted that there were no formalized regulations regarding protection of human studies during the 1940s.

In addition to the apology, the U.S. is setting up commissions to ensure that human medical research conducted around the globe meets "rigorous ethical standards." U.S. officials are also launching investigations to uncover exactly what happened during the experiments

The episode raises inevitable comparisons to the infamous Tuskegee experiment, the Alabama study where hundreds of African-American men were told they were being treated for syphilis, but in fact were denied treatment (atrocidad cometida por ordenes de la administarion demócrata de Franklin D. Roosevelt). That U.S. government study lasted from 1932 until press reports revealed it in 1972.

The Guatemala experiments, which were conducted between 1946 and 1948, ( bajo el gobierno demócrata de Harry Truman) never provided any useful information and the records were hidden.

Wellesley College

Susan Reverby, a professor of women's studies at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, discovered records documenting U.S. experiments that infected Guatemalans with gonorrhea and syphilis.

They were discovered by Susan Reverby, a professor of women's studies at Wellesley College in Massachusetts and were posted on her website.

According to Reverby’s report, the Guatemalan project was co-sponsored by the U.S. Public Health Service, the NIH, the Pan-American Health Sanitary Bureau (now the Pan American Health Organization) and the Guatemalan government. The experiments involved 696 subjects — male prisoners and female patients in the National Mental Health Hospital.

The researchers were trying to determine whether the antibiotic penicillin could prevent syphilis infection, not just cure it, Reverby writes. After the subjects were infected with the syphilis bacteria — through visits with prostitutes who had the disease and direct inoculations — it is unclear whether they were later cured or given proper medical care, Reverby notes. While most of the patients got treatment, experts estimate as many as a one-third, did not.

When you write a book, particularly one that requires several years of research, you tend to encounter a bunch of unexpected information. Sometimes you find things that, if reported, will undoubtedly prompt partisans to demand you explain yourself. For me, this begins that process of explaining, given that one of the major characters in my new book on American Communists, Dupes, is Frank Marshall Davis.

Allegations regarding Davis’s Communism are sure to infuriate the Left because of the influence Davis once had over our president. He was a drinking buddy of Barack Obama’s maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham, and spent time with young Obama. He turns up in the president’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, shrewdly identified only as “Frank”: “I was intrigued by old Frank, with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes.” Recently, a U.S. Communist-party official confirmed the relationship, bragging in a speech of the Communist Davis’s formative influence over Obama. And yet when the allegations surfaced during the 2008 campaign, they went virtually unreported in the mainstream media.

After an almost four-year-long sojourn in which I tried to ascertain whether Davis was a progressive duped by Communists, or, conversely, a Communist who duped progressives, I determined the latter. No doubt, this conclusion — which means the leader of the free world was strongly influenced by a Marxist — will bring the unholy wrath of liberals.

Yet, they should brace themselves for another kind of anger. Once they read what Davis did and wrote, they might redirect their rage. In truth, Davis’s targets were mainly Democrats, and especially a Democratic icon, Harry Truman.What Davis said about Truman was unbelievably outrageous. Worse, he said it because it was the Moscow line.

Since the early 1990s, I’ve been absorbed with archives from the Soviet and Communist world — I’ve looked at every kind of declassified holding. In recent years, I’ve concentrated on an extraordinary cache of material from the Comintern Archives on Communist Party USA (CPUSA). This material is utterly damning to the American Left, especially in its vindication of the worst fears and warnings of anti-Communists. Not surprisingly, our illustrious “scholars” in the academy are studiously ignoring it.

When I heard the accusations that Davis was both a Communist and a former mentor of Obama’s, I began noticing his name in documents, from House and Senate investigations to materials for hideous Communist fronts such as the American Peace Mobilization, a group that supported or opposed Hitler based entirely on whether he was signing non-aggression pacts with Stalin’s USSR or invading Stalin’s USSR. This group also unrelentingly demonized Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I learned that Davis served as an editor and writer for a Communist-line publication, the Chicago Star, in the 1930s. I next learned that the Midwest native had flown thousands of miles away to Hawaii to take up permanent residence, just when American Communists were looking to start a publication there, namely the Honolulu Record. Subsequently, Davis wrote a weekly column for that publication.

With the help of two super-impressive researchers, including one living in Hawaii, I procured Davis’s weekly “Frank-ly Speaking” columns for the Record. These writings flawlessly parroted official Soviet propaganda and portrayed the likes of Harry Truman, George Marshall, and other courageous Democrats as colonialist-imperialist-fascist-racist monsters. Davis even denounced the Marshall Plan. As any student of this era knows, only the Soviet Union, via the public voices of Stalin and Molotov, took this absurd pposition.

In column after column, Davis claimed Truman craved not only a “third world war,” but to “rule Russia.” Davis said that Truman’s “fascism, American sstyle was motivated by an anti-Communism that was fueled by veiled racism. Davis repeatedly asserted that the Soviet Union not only desired peace — as Stalin seized Eastern Europe, while also killing tens of millions of his own people — but had abolished poverty, unemployment, and even racism.

Such examples from Davis are so voluminous that they constitute the longest chapter in my 600-plus-page book. Summarizing them here is impossible. But here are three telling examples.

In a Feb. 9, 1950, piece, Davis pushed the Communist line that framed Truman as the butcher of Hiroshima, a man who used the bomb not to end World War II and save lives — with Stalin’s enthusiastic support — but to try to take the world. “When we dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima,” wrote Davis, “we believed the world was ours. Having defeated the Axis powers on the battlefront, we were ready to show the Russians who was boss of this world.”

In a Jan. 26, 1950, column, titled “Free Enterprise or Socialism,” Davis painted a stark picture of an America on the verge of another Great Depression, the fault of a “virtual dictatorship of Big Business.” He concluded that in the face of “still rising unemployment and a mounting depression, the time draws nearer when we will have to decide to oust the monopolies and restore a competing system of free enterprise, or let the government own and operate our major industries.”

Davis’s May 18, 1950, article was a very important, albeit insidious, illustration of where Moscow stood on postwar Germany, and the unforgivable way American Communists followed in lockstep. The Bolsheviks had long wanted a “Sovietized” Germany, and the end of World War II, with Germany on the losing side and the USSR on the winning one, presented a golden opportunity. What stood in the way? America. Thus, the Communist party worldwide attacked American policy in West Germany.

Here, too, the Soviets issued an unbelievable set of talking points, arguing that America wanted not a free West Germany but a revived Nazi Germany.

Ridiculous as this claim was, Davis characteristically saluted the red flag. “It is a known fact that many honest American officials have quit their posts in disgust over the way in which Western Germany is being handed back to the Nazis,” reported Davis. America’s policy of de-Nazification was a sham — “one of the big jokes of the 20th century.” It was, alleged Davis, the product of a racist-fascist-imperialist-capitalist conspiracy led by Democrats and Big Business: “The big industrialists who financed Hitler have been handed back their factories and the old school ties with Wall Street are almost as strong as they ever were.”

What kind of West Germany was America helping to its feet? According to Frank Marshall Davis, “It is the Germany of the master race theory. . . . The fascists we sought to exterminate in World War II as ‘the greatest threat to mankind the globe has ever known,’ are now our partners. . . . ‘What d’you say we kiss and make up?’”

Today, American politicians, including Barack Obama, travel to Berlin to make eloquent speeches about how the United States rightly stood beside Berliners in resisting the Soviet Union in those scary, early days of the Cold War. That wasn’t true for Frank Marshall Davis. Davis stood on the other side of the wall.

As someone who has long studied this period, I recognized Davis’s writing immediately as the crass propaganda pushed by Communists around the world at that time. Congress thought the same thing. Within only months of the appearance of these columns in the Honolulu Record, Davis’s name was appearing in investigations of the Communist movement. Eventually, in December 1956, he was called to testify before the U.S. Senate, where he pleaded the Fifth Amendment. In a Senate report in 1957 titled “Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States,” Davis was plainly listed as “an identified member of the Communist Party.”

Later, even sympathetic biographers would discern the obvious. A 1999 book, The New Red Negro, by James Edward Smethurst, a professor at the University of Massachusetts who earned his Ph.D. at Harvard, concluded that Davis “was almost certainly a CPUSA member.”

More conclusive was John Edgar Tidwell, a University of Kansas professor and Davis biographer. “Sometime during the middle of [WWII], [Davis] joined the Communist Party,” Tidwell recorded. In the introduction to a 2002 volume of Davis’s writing he edited, Black Moods: Collected Poems, Tidwell produced a letter by Davis to a Kansas friend he was recruiting to CPUSA. Davis wrote: “I’ve never discussed this with you and don’t know whether you share the typical American uninformed concepts of Marxism or not, but I am risking such a reaction by saying that I have recently joined the Communist party.”

Later still, during the 2008 presidential campaign, further testimony on Davis’s party membership came from actual Communists themselves (I quote them in the book).

The real smoking gun, however, is Davis’s declassified 600-page FBI file, which was recently released through a freedom-of-information request by a fellow researcher. A cursory glance at these pages — which include accounts by informants and eyewitnesses — quickly reveals that Davis was a Communist. As evidence for readers, we have isolated and published about a dozen pages from the file in the appendix of my book, including one that lists Davis’s actual Communist-party number: 47544.

That number is consistent with those of the period. Consider the Communist-party numbers of some of the Hollywood Ten figures whom liberals laughably still defend as innocent lambs: John Howard Lawson (47275), Albert Maltz (47196), Alvah Bessie (46836).

In sum, a mentor of the current president of the United States was a Communist — and not only a party member, but an actual propagandist for Stalin’s USSR, a man who unceasingly demonized Democratic presidents and their policies and cherished ideals. Even in World War II, Davis was on the wrong side: He was flatly pro-Soviet and anti-American.

If you feel like you’ve been duped, or at least deprived of some significant background information about the man who is now the elected leader of the free world, you can thank our shameless, woefully biased media for failing to do its job.

– Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and the newly released Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century